From Devotion to Disputes: Can Religious Name be Owed under Intellectual Property Law?

Introduction:

In 2025, Delhi Commercial court halted a spiritual group from using “Nirankari”, a term which is sacred to Sikh tradition meaning “devotee of the formless god”, due to the reason that a larger mission had built decades of exclusive goodwill around it. This verdict in Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) v. Nirankari Dham & Ors. CS DJ/5992/2018, captures the growing tension that religious heritage like names, symbols and leaders’ images now collides with intellectual property laws. With the digitization of faith, courts must decide if divine terms can become proprietary, risking commodification of spirituality or dilution of believers’ trust. This article explores these clashes through landmark cases, legal history, global views and paths forward.

Sacred vs. Secular:

Religious heritage consists of words like “Nirankari” from Guru Granth Sahib, symbols like Cross and various icons of spiritual leaders, all of which are viewed as timeless public domain gifts from the divine. Intellectual Property law, however, ensures the protection through various means such as, trademarks protect source identifying marks from confusion, copyright shields original expression, and personality rights emerging in India control commercial use of a person’s likeliness.

From time immemorial, pre-industrial societies used to invoke sacred names freely without any ownership claims, but the modern IP shifted this with statutes like Trademarks Act, 1999 of India, and the US Lanham Act, which prioritized the consumer protection over spiritual openness. Courts now test if sacred terms acquire any “secondary meaning” i.e. public association with one particular source, despite being descriptive or having any religious roots, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.[1]

High-Profile Clashes:

The Sant Nirankari Mandal case is a clear example of how religious names can still get the protection. The Sant Nirankari Mandal is a Delhi based spiritual organisation which was founded in 1929 and having almost 3000 branches all over the world. It conducts annual Samagams, runs various schools, hospitals, and operates official platforms like nirankari.org and also registered various trademarks such as “Sant Nirankari Mandal” and “Annual Nirankari Sant Samagam”.

In 2018, a group of people led by former poet of the Mandal set up a new organisation called “Nirankari Dham”. They registered a website nirankaridham.com, also used an email address that closely resembled to that of Mandal’s official ones, and displayed pictures of the late spiritual leader Baba Hardev Singh Ji during their Satsangs. As per the Mandal, this was all done to mislead the devotees, especially in rural areas, into believing that these events were officially connected, leading to diverted donations.

The defendants argued that the term “Nirankari” could not belong to anyone, as it is derived from Sanskrit word “Nirakara” meaning formless, and has been used by spiritual sects long before the existence of Mandal. They also claimed the protection under Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom[2].

However, the court found strong evidences of confusion, like many devotees had donated money, believing that they were attending official Mandal events. The Court noted that even though “Nirankari” appears in unrelated contexts like jewellery shops, but in religious setting it had acquired a distinct identity which is linked specifically to the Sant Nirankari Mandal. So, considering the Mandal’s long-standing reputation, global presence, and defendant’s dishonest intent, the court ruled in favour of the Mandal and issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using similar names or representations and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as damages, holding that the Mandal’s established goodwill and reputation outweighed the term’s religious origins.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has also taken numerous legal actions against unauthorised groups who were using names like “Hare Krishna”, arguing that such use misleads devotees and dilutes ISKCON’s identity and goodwill, even though the phrase has religious roots.

Modern tech has made these issues even more complex, as artificial intelligence tools are now creating NFTs and digital artworks of religious deities, which leads to numerous lawsuits in different jurisdictions of world, over copyright and ownership of sacred images.

Legal Fault Line:

When religious or sacred words are claimed as trademarks, they often run into problems under intellectual property law, the reason behind is trademark law requires a mark to be distinctive. The words which are purely descriptive or commonly used such as “Nirankari” cannot be secured unless the owner could prove that the public strongly associates that word with one specific organisation, this is called secondary meaning. Courts rely on the evidences like long term use, advertising, scale of activities, financial record, and even surveys showing public confusion. The Delhi High Court relied on this principle, as laid down in the case of T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.[3], where the Supreme Court held that even a common word can get trademark protection if it gets uniquely associated to a particular source.

Bad faith also plays a significant role in such cases, when the defendant has internal information, like being a former office bearer of an organisation, courts view their actions with greater suspicion. In the case of Sant Nirankari, the defendant’s previous association with the Mandal weighed heavily against them, as it suggested deliberate misuse rather than innocent adoption.

Different countries approach these problems differently, in United States of America, courts often balance trademark rights against First Amendment protection for free speech and religious expression. As a result, overly broad religious marks are sometimes struck down to prevent any kind of monopolisation of faith-based terms. In the European Union, stronger emphasis is placed on moral and cultural rights, ensuring that the religious and cultural marks aren’t misused in a way that could offend public dignity. In India, The Trademarks Act, 1999 allows certain descriptive or religious terms to remain unregistered, but courts still actively protect organisations in genuine cases through passing off actions when there is clear deception or any kind of misuse of goodwill.

Another important legal aspect is personality and image rights. In the case of Sant Nirankari, the court stopped the defendant from using pictures and representation of spiritual leader Baba Hardev Singh Ji, recognising that unauthorised use of a spiritual leader’s image could mislead and exploit the emotional trust of devotees. This approach was based on the principle laid down in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers[4], where the Delhi High Court affirmed that unauthorised commercial use of a person’s violates their personal rights.

Critics, however, raise concerns that intellectual property laws may be used to secure the commercial interests, by allowing corporations to profit from religious devotion while rival groups and internal splits create confusion among the followers. Over the time, such disputes lead to risk of weakening of public trust in religious institutions rather than protecting the genuine spiritual interests.

Striking a Balance:

The way forward lies in finding a fair middle path, international efforts like WIPO’s proposals on traditional knowledge, suggest some solutions like “religious exceptions”. Under this approach, the sacred terms would generally remain in public domain unless an organisation could clearly prove that the name has achieved a distinct goodwill through in consistent and long us. This could help in preventing anyone from unfairly claiming ownership rights over such religious and faith-based words.

The verdict given in the case of Sant Nirankari Mandal shows a balanced and practical approach. The court focused on preventing any further misuse while allowing genuine religious practice to continue. This kind of approach protects the organisation’s goodwill without turning faith into a purely commercial asset.

Moving further, the policymakers could introduce “faith impact assessments” before granting trademarks which involves religious terms. Such a step could ensure that intellectual property law respects spiritual heritage while still preventing deception and misuse.

The names of God may belong to everyone, but courts have made one thing clear, when public trust, reputation and devotion are built over decades, the law will step in to safeguard them. Also, with the increasing risks due to evolving technology, intellectual property law must evolve to ensure the protection of both commerce and conscience. Religious organisations should act early to safeguard their rights, and those who are seeking to imitate them should proceed with caution, keeping in mind that faith deserves respect, not exploitation.